A MESSAGE TO CALIFORNIA VOTERS
CONCERNING THE MARRIAGE AMENDMENT
 
By David W. New, Esq.
 
On November 4, 2008, the voters in California will be given the opportunity to vote for an amendment known as the "California Marriage Protection Act." On the ballot it will appear as Proposition 8.
 
Proposition 8, if approved, will amend the California Constitution in Article 1, Section 7.5 to read as follows:
 
"Sec. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in
California."
 
It is likely that many voters in California are uncertain if they will support or oppose Proposition 8.
 
Many voters are uncertain if Proposition 8 is a proper subject for the California Constitution. Should an amendment like this be included in the state constitution?
 
Another issue for many voters concerns the rights of homosexuals. Do homosexuals have a legal right to engage in homosexual sex? What effect will Proposition 8 have on whatever rights gays and lesbians have to engage in homosexual sex?
 
Finally, many Californians want to know why homosexuality is wrong? Why shouldn't homosexuals be allowed to marry?
 
I support Proposition 8. I support it for secular and religious reasons. In this article I propose to discuss the secular reasons I support Proposition 8.
 
Although I no longer live in California, I have a deep attachment to the state. As a boy, I grew up in the Sunset District in San Francisco. In 1972, I graduated from the Novato High School in Novato, California. I care a lot about the people of California and their future.
 
Some Areas Where I Agree With the Gay and Lesbian Agenda
 
The California Supreme Court recently ruled that homosexuals have a right to marry. I do not agree with this decision. I believe the Court abused its power. To claim that the California Constitution includes a right for homosexuals to marry is absurd. Thankfully, the voters will have the final say in this matter in November.
 
However, there are some areas where I agree with the Gay and Lesbian Agenda. For example, I agree that homosexuals should not be the subject of verbal or physical abuse.
Cruelty in any form is unnecessary and unacceptable. The law should punish anyone who engages in acts of violence against homosexuals or against anyone else for that matter.
 
Is a Marriage Amendment Like Proposition 8 A Proper Subject for the California Constitution?
 
There are three reasons why Proposition 8 is a proper subject for the California Constitution. First, 27 states have already passed similar measures for their state constitutions. Therefore, the voters in California will not be doing anything different from what the voters in other states have already done.
 
Second, the state constitutions have a long history of dealing with sexual issues. For example, the Idaho Constitution of 1890, which is the current constitution, prohibits polygamy and bigamy. The Idaho Constitution defines these sexual lifestyles as crimes. The 1907 Oklahoma Constitution prohibits polygamy or "plural marriages." The 1896 Constitution of Utah also prohibits polygamy or "plural marriages."
 
Third, if the U.S. Supreme Court is correct, the subject of marriage is covered in the U.S. Constitution as well. In 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a "liberty" right based on the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment. See Meyer v. Nebraska, 262 U.S. 390 at 399 "to marry" (1923).
 
Question: If the subject of marriage is included in the U.S. Constitution, then how could it be wrong to include it in the California Constitution? I believe Proposition 8 is a proper subject for the California Constitution.
 
Is There a Legal Right to Engage in Homosexual Sex? What Effect Will Proposition 8 Have on the Rights of Homosexuals?
 
From a historical perspective, homosexuals do not have a legal right to engage in homosexual sex. The common law punished homosexual sex as a crime. All of the original 13 states defined homosexual sex as a crime. Six months before James Madison attended the constitutional convention in 1787, he tried unsuccessfully to update the law to punish homosexual sex. He did this as a member of the Virginia legislature in 1786. The proposed law was known as Bill No. 64.
 
In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a law which punished homosexual sex in the privacy of a home was unconstitutional. The name of the case was Lawrence v. Texas. Even in this case however, the U.S. Supreme Court did not say there was a legal right for a homosexual to engage in homosexual sex. The Lawrence Court limited their objection to the Texas law and how it applied to homosexuals. Some scholars argue that even if the Lawrence Court did not expressly create a right to homosexual sex, in practical terms this was the effect of the decision. And this is where the issue of homosexual rights stand today. It is a matter of debate.
 
Except for the question of marriage, Proposition 8 will not change any legal rights, if any exists, for a homosexual to engage in homosexual sex.
 
Is Homosexuality Wrong?
 
There are three reasons why the homosexual lifestyle is wrong for California. First and most obvious are the health issues. The homosexual lifestyle is not a healthy one. The life expectancy for homosexuals is lower than heterosexuals. And the opportunity for a practicing homosexual to catch a sexually transmitted disease (STD) is very high.
 
By contrast, a married couple who are faithful to each other have little chance of catching a sexually transmitted disease. Millions of married couples spend their entire life free of sexual diseases. This cannot be said for the 'gay' lifestyle.
 
Even if we agree that homosexuals should be allowed to marry, the health consequences of homosexuality will not disappear.
 
To be sure, every Californian is affected by this issue. The California taxpayer has been asked to spend lots of money on medical research for AIDS and other related diseases. The cost of AIDS for the American taxpayer is in the billions of dollars. To a taxpayer, it does not matter where a homosexual engages in sex. It does not matter if it is done in the privacy of a home or in a public rest room, every taxpayer is affected.
 
The second reason homosexuality is wrong concerns the sex acts themselves. The sex acts that homosexuals participate in are so repulsive to most people that no one wants to discuss them. Let's face it– anal sex is not a family value. Considered in the most objective light possible, anal sex is reckless behavior under any circumstances. The opportunity for disease is unlimited.
 
Sexual promiscuity is another characteristic of homosexuality. Admittedly, some homosexuals are in a committed relationship but their numbers are small. Some heterosexuals are promiscuous as well. But as a lifestyle there is no comparison. While statistics vary, it is estimated that the average homosexual has 50 different sex partners per year. If there ever was a contradiction in terms it has to be 'gay marriage.'
 
This leads us to the third reason homosexuality is wrong for California. California children need a father and a mother. A child needs both parents. There are some things that only a father can teach a child. And there are some things that only a mother can teach a child. The traditional family is the best environment for the development of a healthy child. Two daddies or two mommies will not work.
 
The biggest losers in this debate concerning homosexuality are California children. They have been largely left out of the picture. Homosexuals who plan to marry never have to factor in a child in their future. There is no need to. The homosexual lifestyle as such is completely divorced from children.
 
If a homosexual couple wants to have a child they must look to the heterosexual community for one. This fact alone indicates that the homosexual lifestyle is not comparable to heterosexuality.
 
It is true that not every child can have a father and a mother. However, it should be the public policy of California to encourage the traditional family. Proposition 8 does this. Proposition 8 supports the traditional family. It will help to create the best possible environment for a child- a family with a father and a mother. Please vote for Proposition 8.
 
David W. New practices law in the Washington, D.C. area. Be on the lookout for David New's upcoming book: "A Guide to Finding God in the Constitution."
 
To learn more about Proposition 8, visit the California Secretary of State web page
(Scroll down to Proposition 8):
 
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm#2008General